Apologies to all innocent bystanders for what has degenerated into an
offtopic flamefest. Unfortunately MKE has made some statements directed
at myself that I feel I cannot leave unanswered.
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 07:24:33PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 8/3/05, Diego Biurrun <diego@biurrun.de> wrote:
>
> If a public figure as remarkable as RMS does not choose to gather
> sizable donations to his preferred charity in return for his speaking
> engagements, then perhaps conference organizers should be prepared for
> the eccentric behavior that is occasionally reported.
You wouldn't - AGAIN - be saying bad things about somebody in public
with nothing more than rumors to back it up, would you?
> > > There's a lot of money to be made in this
> > > area (although it's a pretty hard life if you have close friends and
> > > like your home); and if RMS had a way of laundering the money ("don't
> > > give it to me; but donate to the FSF if you like") so as to appear
> > > saintly, he wouldn't be the first.
> >
> > You're again bordering on slander, I'd tread more carefully if I were
> > you.
>
> Still far from slander;
Not being a native speaker I'll have to admit that there are subtleties
in English that escape me. You are directly questioning another person's
character with your - unsubstantiated - theories and spreading those
claims in public. This is extremely rude and at some point crosses over
into the realm of what dict.leo.org translates into English as slander
or libel.
> but I confess that I regretted this immediately, and was relieved to
> be able to find enough public evidence in a matter of a couple of
> hours to refute my own speculation, at least as regards the FSF.
This should be a dead giveaway that you should not have speculated in
the first place, much less on a public mailing list that will be
archived from here to eternity.
> Treading carefully does not, if I may say so, seem to be _your_
> specialty.
I beg your pardon? I have never insulted anybody around here, nor do
I question anybody's character. I especially do not question the
integrity of public figures with what amounts to nothing to back up my
claims, only to be rebutted by everybody including myself immediately.
> > And I judge your evidence poorly researched. This does not enhance your
> > credibility when you expound at length (and length and length) on legal
> > affairs.
>
> It's really interesting that people who show no evidence of having
> invested any effort whatsoever themselves in research of any aspect of
> this topic are so quick to reject, not only the slightest speculation
> beyond the proven facts, but any evidence I may have brought to bear
> on any conclusion distasteful to them. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
What you said about RMS and speakers at free software conferences etc
was poorly researched as you even found out yourself after a bit of
digging. Shooting from the hip like this has done serious damage to
your credibility when talking about other topics. It's not something
I'm making up to spite you, it was stated explicitly in some of the
replies to your messages in this thread. Ignorance of these facts is
indeed bliss.
Diego